> On 21 Apr., 21:17, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:> > On 18/04/2013 3:32 AM, fom wrote:> >> > > On 4/18/2013 1:25 AM, WM wrote:> > >> On 18 Apr., 03:52, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:> >> > >>>>> When changing this to {(1), (1, 2), (1, 2, 3), ...} nothing is added.> >> > >>> Yes, well. What's a bunch of parentheses (or braces) among friends?> > >>> Just like 1 + 5*8 = (1 + 5)*8, I suppose.> >> > >> Again a confused sequence of thoughts leading to a wrong analogy. Not> > >> astonishing from your side. Find a natural numbers that is in {(1),> > >> (1, 2), (1, 2, 3), ...} but not in {1, 2, 3, ...}? Or vice versa? Of> > >> course you would be able to answer that question but you will not> > >> publish it. I know.> >> > As long as Mueckenheim does not even understand the meaning of "in",> > I use it for expressing that a natural number is in a set or one of> its subsets or in a term of a sequence or in one of its subsets.> Everybody could see that from the context. Anything wrong with this> obvious use?

It is, as usual with WM's "usages", unnecessarily ambiguous and thus prone to the sort of misunderstandings that almost all of WM's arguments are based on.

When having 1 in {1} is not the same "in" as having 1 in 1 + 2 + 3 +..., using "in" is deliberately obfuscating.

But WMytheology thrives on obfuscation and ambiguity and is upset by any practices which diminish or eliminate them.--